Darwinism as an explanation for life is dead. The final death blow was administered by discoveries about intracellular nanomachinery, which amply satisfy Darwin's own test of falsification.
Dead, but it won't lie down. Evolutionism is propped up by the well organised and well funded enemies of Biblical Christianity as it is foundational to the secular humanist world view they hold so dear. This blog will criticise evolutionism and explore its harmful effects.

Tuesday, 11 February 2014

I have been busy with other matters and preparing to travel so
have only watched the first hour or so of the Nye/Ham debate, but noticed a lot
of comment from elsewhere, particularly from theistic evolutionists GC Science
and Tyler Franke. I wish these people well while disagreeing with them over
origins.

Plenty of comment is already on line. Will this debate prove
to be some kind of turning point? Or a historic landmark like the Scopes
trial? Or a legend like the Wilberforce/Huxley debate. Or will the mainstream media misrepresent, ignore and try to bury it? I don’t know, but on present showing I suspect the latter.

One of my predictions was correct anyway, the BBC radio 4 news
I listen to daily hasn’t made any mention of the debate. I might have missed it, but I did hear them broadcast 2 more of their trademark 'Science shows evolution is true and the Bible isn’t’ stories.
Both of them hyped and over interpreted evidence as usual. One
concerns camel bones and has been rather easily refuted. The other story is
about some ancient footprints in sandstone which were exposed by storms. They
have been confidently dated at 800,000 years (HOW?) which seems odd to me since
they were exposed and then washed away by a storm in a few days. Has there really not
been such a storm for nearly a million years since the prints were made and then covered? The BBC TV news broadcast an artist’s impression
of a whole community of supposed human ancestors (based on some very indistinct
impressions in mud???) in a hyping of evidence remarkably reminiscent of the
Nebraska Man scam. And this trivial, over interpreted evidence of not very much was considered more newsworthy than the Nye/Ham
debate.

Of course I can’t prove that the BBC deliberately broadcasts
stories like this to use as propaganda nor at what level the editorial decision
to ignore the debate was made. It is in the nature of conspirators and
propagandists to cover their tracks. The reader can draw their own conclusions from the fact that when this debate was major intellectual/cultural news worldwide, it ignored it and ran one anti-Bible and another pro-Darwin story instead.

I predicted that if Ham had fouled up then the BBC would have been all over the debate. He didn't.

>>>>Before the
debate I received many emails, phone calls, letters, Facebook postings, and
even certified mail telling me what I should say to Bill Nye. About 150–200
people gave me advice. Some Christians (including Christian leaders) wrote
articles declaring what they would do in a debate with Mr. Nye, and they knew I
would have the wrong approach—and that was before they even heard the debate!

I also knew what would
happen after the debate—I would be critiqued by friend and foe alike for what I
said or didn’t say. Yes, even some of our supporters were unhappy with me for
not including more of what they see as evidences. Most of them didn’t seem to
comprehend the real nature of the battle.

I went into the debate
knowing that I was opening myself up to the world—and no matter what I did,
people from both sides would have negative responses. And that’s exactly what
has happened.<<<

If it had been me rather
than Ham doing the debate, I would probably
have said much more about irreducible complexity, origin of life scenarios and mutations
and avoided age of the earth (*). But I wasn’t, Ham was. He says in his own
reflection that tactically he was determined to not say too much about the
specifics of the scientific evidence and arguments against evolution, which is well
documented on sites like AiG, CMI, ICR and elsewhere. He determined instead to try to
make the case that the repeatable, operational science that puts rockets on the moon and gives us
Smartphones and medicines is quite different to the historical science that claims to know
what happened in the unobservable past, while relying on many untestable assumptions.
He raised the issue of interpretation of evidence depending on materialistic or Biblical worldviews as being an issue with which we needed to come to terms. He emphasized the ‘bait and switch’ tactics which are routinely used to argue
massive conclusions from tiny and/or irrelevant pieces of evidence. Time will
tell if this was the best tactic, perhaps.

Anyway, I have neither the
time nor the inclination to attempt a full appraisal of the debate, others are doing so from both sides and the middle (if there is a middle). If Ham proves
successful in persuading even a few people to think outside the box and
question the (generally unstated) philosophical assumption of naturalism then
it will have been worthwhile. But the massive evolution propaganda machine will
carry on doing what it does-portraying Darwin skepticism as ‘religion versus science’,
misrepresenting creationists and generally keeping up the evolutionist propaganda
that there is no scientific case to be made against molecules to man evolution.

And some of us, perhaps a growing
number, will continue to point out that Emperor Charlie is stark bollock naked.(*) a very old earth is a necessary BUT NOT A SUFFICIENT condition for molecules to man evolution to have occurred. If the biology says that a naturalistic unguided origin of life is so improbable that we might as well say impossible (and it does) then more time doesn't help. Furthermore, the God of the Bible if He can raise the dead and turn water into wine instantaneously is quite capable of creating a MATURE cosmos in 6 days. a MATURE (i.e. currently fit for purpose) cosmos, world and plants animals and people would OF NECESSITY have appeared old, just like that water turned into wine. That's about all I have to say on the age of the earth.